Life In 19x19

A pro who knows that he'll lose by a few points will go all out at a crucial stage, possibly losing a group. In a system where close losses are rewarded more than big losses, the incentive will be much smaller. So I'd think that the system leads to less spectacular games, not more.

Knotwilg wrote:A pro who knows that he'll lose by a few points will go all out at a crucial stage, possibly losing a group. In a system where close losses are rewarded more than big losses, the incentive will be much smaller. So I'd think that the system leads to less spectacular games, not more.

That is one of my objections to this perversion. To have a guaranteed loss by a small margin to be preferable to going all out for a win is just anathema to my way of thinking. Imagine the situation of needing needing a birdie on the 18th hole of the US Open to win but deciding that the risk is too great so you settle for a bogie to guarantee second place. I don't think so.

DrStraw wrote:

Knotwilg wrote:A pro who knows that he'll lose by a few points will go all out at a crucial stage, possibly losing a group. In a system where close losses are rewarded more than big losses, the incentive will be much smaller. So I'd think that the system leads to less spectacular games, not more.

That is one of my objections to this perversion. To have a guaranteed loss by a small margin to be preferable to going all out for a win is just anathema to my way of thinking. Imagine the situation of needing needing a birdie on the 18th hole of the US Open to win but deciding that the risk is too great so you settle for a bogie to guarantee second place. I don't think so.

In the system that I lay out above, suppose that someone faces a small loss of 3.5 points of territory and risks around 15 points of territory to gain around 5 points of territory. In converted points that is a risk of 2-3 points to gain 5-6 points: a good bet.

DrStraw wrote:Imagine the situation of needing needing a birdie on the 18th hole of the US Open to win but deciding that the risk is too great so you settle for a bogie to guarantee second place. I don't think so.

What about the situation where a bogie on the final hole wins the tournament (or preserves a lead, in an earlier round)? Would any professional go for the birdie, if it carries more risk of ultimate loss? Golf sounds rather analogous to Hahn Go to me. Each hole has a margin of victory, not a simple win/loss result, and the final winner is decided by the sum of the marginal scores.